If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Phil denying climate change?

I've just had an experience I never thought I'd have again; an edit war over Nibiru. I wrote and maintain Wikipedia's article on the whole "Planet X-Nancy Lieder-Nibiru" thing and someone just tried to delete a link to the Bad Astronomy website and add a link to a site supporting the Nibiru cataclysm. When I reverted him, he changed it back with the comment "Phil Plait is denying climate change". Now this is an odd comment to make because I've seen articles he wrote on Slate denouncing climate change denial. I was wondering how this could have entered his head.

I've just had an experience I never thought I'd have again; an edit war over Nibiru. I wrote and maintain Wikipedia's article on the whole "Planet X-Nancy Lieder-Nibiru" thing and someone just tried to delete a link to the Bad Astronomy website and add a link to a site supporting the Nibiru cataclysm. When I reverted him, he changed it back with the comment "Phil Plait is denying climate change". Now this is an odd comment to make because I've seen articles he wrote on Slate denouncing climate change denial. I was wondering how this could have entered his head.

I don't do Wikipedia, but aren't there Wikipedia rules about arguments like this? The reason the article is linked is because Phil is (or was) a professional astronomer, and the article focuses on astronomical aspects of the Nibiru/Planet X claim. One of the several points he makes is about a claim that was being made (in 2001) about weird weather being due to Nibiru's approach. Here's the section regarding that:

And even if it were true, how could the weather possibly be to tied to an incoming planet? If you assume electromagnetic forces, we'd see huge changes in our aurora before we'd see changes in the weather, and we see no such changes. If it were gravitational, then there would be countless other, far larger effects. Long before the weather were disrupted, we'd see changes in the Moon's orbit that were so big they would be unmistakable. They would certainly throw off the timings of eclipses, and we'll see on May 15th that there will be a lunar eclipse right on schedule.

So the context the argument is that, based on his field of expertise, any rogue planet that could have noticeable weather effects would be blatantly obvious for many other reasons. Therefore the weather claim is implausible. What he might or might not say about weather or climate outside of that context elsewhere is irrelevant to this.

"The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." — Abraham Lincoln

I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

This guy is weird. Notice that he tends to answer every challenge, whether it is directed at him or not, with a mini-essay. That indicates a guy who can't quite pull his thoughts together (or alternately, a guy who believes that his thoughts are fine enough to be shared with the world in hi-def).

I've not followed the link, but my guess is that since the guy has decided that climate change is ONLY caused by Nibiru, and Plait denies Nibiru, Plait is therefore a climate change denier. Does that sound plausible?

I've not followed the link, but my guess is that since the guy has decided that climate change is ONLY caused by Nibiru, and Plait denies Nibiru, Plait is therefore a climate change denier. Does that sound plausible?

That's what I got out of the mind tangle being created by someone. He's trying to link his unsupported belief in an unobserved planet with something that has an extensive body of knowledge.

Interesting (for a given value of the term) update: it seems Zetatalk has, at long last, established a permanent outpost on Wikipedia, because I can't make an edit to the article anymore without one of Nancy's cultists pulling it apart. I wonder why it took her so long to do this, given that she's been spewing invective at the article for years. She even has a Wiki account now! What I don't get is, why now? It's been two years since anyone even thought about Nibiru. Why is she so concerned about how the wider world views her, when the wider world hasn't given her a second thought?

Apparently, her big hangup is that, while she DID tell people to put down their pets in anticipation of the event back in 2003, and DID say in a radio interview that she had put her pets down herself, she DIDN'T say she put her pets down in anticipation of the event, and that her doing so was an ENTIRELY SEPARATE incident.

Interesting (for a given value of the term) update: it seems Zetatalk has, at long last, established a permanent outpost on Wikipedia, because I can't make an edit to the article anymore without one of Nancy's cultists pulling it apart. I wonder why it took her so long to do this, given that she's been spewing invective at the article for years. She even has a Wiki account now! What I don't get is, why now? It's been two years since anyone even thought about Nibiru. Why is she so concerned about how the wider world views her, when the wider world hasn't given her a second thought?

Apparently, her big hangup is that, while she DID tell people to put down their pets in anticipation of the event back in 2003, and DID say in a radio interview that she had put her pets down herself, she DIDN'T say she put her pets down in anticipation of the event, and that her doing so was an ENTIRELY SEPARATE incident.

Interesting (for a given value of the term) update: it seems Zetatalk has, at long last, established a permanent outpost on Wikipedia, because I can't make an edit to the article anymore without one of Nancy's cultists pulling it apart. I wonder why it took her so long to do this, given that she's been spewing invective at the article for years. She even has a Wiki account now! What I don't get is, why now? It's been two years since anyone even thought about Nibiru. Why is she so concerned about how the wider world views her, when the wider world hasn't given her a second thought?

Apparently, her big hangup is that, while she DID tell people to put down their pets in anticipation of the event back in 2003, and DID say in a radio interview that she had put her pets down herself, she DIDN'T say she put her pets down in anticipation of the event, and that her doing so was an ENTIRELY SEPARATE incident.

To date, the talk page has expended nearly 10,000 words on this vitally important subject.

This subject must have some sort of importance to you, Parallaxicality, otherwise why would you involve yourself with it?

Wikipedia has a range of procedures for resolving edit wars and arguments on talk page. There is a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, for instance. Please have a look at the page Wikipedia: Dispute_resolution which gives information about some of the procedures.

Given that people have threatened to kill themselves because they're afraid that Nibiru will crash into Earth, yeah, I take defending that page very seriously. As for this particular topic, it never rose to the level of a dispute.

It catches two birds with one stone:
1. There are too many people on this planet.
2. There are way too many idiots.

NoChoice,

You have an extensive history of posting offensive comments, this being only the most recent example. You are being infracted and suspended for this latest one. It will be your last. If you do it again, you will be banned from CQ.

In April 2015, humans reached a new dark record: The monthly level of CO2 reached the 400 ppm mark. That’s no fluke, no brief spike. Its actually part of a very obvious long trend of an increase in the greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

I am still baffled why disputing Nibiru is climate change denying. Perhaps relative thing: a few degrees of global warming vs. a bazillion degrees from an impact event, being shot into the sun or whatever negative space wedgie it causes. Nibiru is a very difficult scenario, the thing could do anything as required by imagination.